More about Kitchen Scene
Contributor
Diego Velázquez paints a kitchen maid in The Kitchen Scene and then repeats this image twice more.
It’s been known that artists make smaller copies of their larger work, and Velázquez did something of the sort with The Kitchen Scene. Two more paintings, The Kitchen Maid and Kitchen Maid with the Supper at Emmaus feature the same model, a young Black servant, in the same pose, wearing the exact same clothes! Talk about running out of ideas for the sequel.
Velázquez didn’t stop at using the same model. He also used the same kitchen appliances featured in other paintings. Makes me wonder if he was emotionally attached to the egg beater or cereal bowl. On the table, some utensils have been borrowed from other Velázquez paintings: The overturned bowls can be found in Two Men at Table; the white ceramic pitcher, mortar, and pestle can be found in Old Woman Cooking Eggs.
Seventeenth-century Seville, Spain was a rough place to be, especially if you were an enslaved person. Seville’s African population was large, and The Kitchen Scene is Velázquez's way of bringing this to light. Africans occupied the majority of domestic servant positions and would often be employed by Seville’s upper and middle classes. Their arrival to Spain dates back to the fourteenth century and grew with the transatlantic slave trade. By the time The Kitchen Scene was created, the enslaved Africans in Seville had been freed, and many of them took on laboring jobs (for the men) and domestic work (for the woman). The anonymity of the subject is something Velázquez does with all his genre scenes. The servant’s eyes turned away, downcast from her owner, the possessor of the painting.
While Velázquez paints more than one sequel to the Kitchen Scene, each painting offers a different insight. There’s either a religious take or simply an up-close and personal look at the subject. Whatever Velázquez's reason for painting the same model or egg beater over and over, he wasn’t recreating the same image but using these fixtures to say something different every time.
Sources
Sources
- Dobrzynski, Judith H., “Houston museum reattributes painting to Velazquez,” The Art Newspaper, November 7, 2018. Date accessed July 14, 2020. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/houston-museum-reattributes-painti…
- Fracchia, Carmen, “Metamorphoses of the self in early-modern Spain: slave portraiture and the case of Juan de Pareja,” Slave Portraiture in the Atlantic World, edited by Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, Angela Rosenthal. New York; Cambridge University Press, 2013.
- Glentzer, Molly, “Mystery solved: MFAH discovers a Spanish treasure hanging in a hallway,” Chron, November 9, 2018. Date accessed July 14, 2020. https://www.chron.com/life/article/Mystery-solved-MFAH-discovers-a-Span…
- Knight, Christopher, “Review; 3 Velazquez paintings alone are reason to go, now, to this San Diego show,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2019. Date accessed July 14, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-golden-age-spain-20…
- Mason, M. S., “The drama of a kitchen maid,” Christian Science Monitor, July 20, 1992. Date accessed July 14, 2020. https://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0720/20161.html
- Tiffany, Tanya J., Diego Velazquez’s Early Paintings and the Culture of Seventeenth-century Seville. Pennsylvania; The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012.
- Weber, Jasmine, “Week in Review: Gallerists fined $15M for art scam, and Kremlin Museum investigates stolen Malevich,” Hyperallergic, November 9, 2018. Date accessed July 14, 2020. https://hyperallergic.com/469984/week-in-review-gallerists-fined-15m-fo…
Featured Content
Here is what Wikipedia says about The Kitchen Maid
The Kitchen Maid (in Spanish La mulata, La cocinera or Escena de cocina (Kitchen Scene)) and Kitchen Maid with the Supper at Emmaus are two paired domestic paintings by Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez from his early Seville period. A wide range of dates has been suggested for its completion, although most place it between 1620 and 1622. The first version is kept in the Art Institute of Chicago; the second version is held at the National Gallery of Ireland.
José López-Rey suggests that this picture could be related to a lost Velázquez painting described by Antonio Palomino "... where a board is seen, that serves as a table, with a charcoal burner, and a pot boiling on top, and covered with a bowl, and the fire is visible, the flames, and the sparks are clearly visible, a small tin saucepan, an alcarraza, some plates, and some basins, a glazed jug, a mortar with its pestle and a head of garlic next to it; and on the wall there is small basket and a cloth hanging from a hook, and other trinkets; and guarding this is a boy holding a jug, wearing a coif, who with his humble clothes represents a subject that is very ridiculous and amusing". The Dublin version was bequeathed by Alfred Beit in 1987. A 1933 cleaning revealed a depiction of Jesus’ supper at Emmaus on the wall behind the main figure.
The Chicago painting was bought from the Goudstikker gallery in Amsterdam by August L. Mayer and presented to the Institute in 1927. It was at the time thought to be the Velázquez original, relegating the Beit painting to the status of a copy. A number of art experts agreed with this opinion, including Bernardino Pantorba and José Gudiol, however, López-Rey recognized that the painting in Dublin came from the hand of Velázquez, casting doubt on the originality of the painting in Chicago due to its poor state of conservation. The Velázquez expert Jonathan Brown agreed with this reasoning, suggesting that the Chicago painting was “possibly” painted by Velázquez. He also suggested that the picture might be a copy produced by an artist who "wanted to draw on the success of genre paintings by Velázquez and who might have produced a large number of replicas and versions of the originals".
The Chicago painting was restored in 1999 by Frank Zuccari. Despite paint losses, the best conserved parts show a similar quality, and in some aspects a superior quality, to the Dublin version. No trace has been found suggesting that the painting might have at any time had any religious significance or that it is anything other than a painting of a mulatto maid working in a kitchen. The painting contains a number of features that confirm its technical superiority over the Dublin version. In the Chicago version there are a greater number of folds on the upper part of the girl’s coif and the treatment of the associated light and shadows is more meticulous, this is also seen in the crumpled cloth in the foreground. Superior technique is also seen in the depiction of light on the objects, particularly on the glazed ceramic jug that the maid is holding in her hand, in which it is possible to see the shine of the crackle glaze and marks left when the jug was formed on a potter’s wheel. A possible explanation for this improvement in technique is that Velázquez returned to a previous theme in order to improve on it, concentrating on the tactile qualities of the painting, which were his main interest at the time, and disregarding the religious motif.
Suggested influences for the painting include Flemish engravings by Jacob Matham. The appearance of the Supper at Emmaus in the Dublin version has led some authors to suggest a possible influence by Caravaggio, although this is uncertain as it is difficult to establish whether works by the Italian painter or by his contemporaries could have reached Seville and for Velázquez to have been familiar with them.
In 2018 the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, announced the discovery of a third version: this one is similar to the Chicago version but 'cropped' at left and right to an almost square format.
Check out the full Wikipedia article about The Kitchen Maid
